User talk:KJP1/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


for the correction - sometimes one has doubts. JarrahTree 13:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JarrahTree - No problem. Welsh place names can be very confusing. I've left a note at Commons that the file needs renaming. KJP1 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
unfortunately my local knowledge of wales is v limited to the welsh highland railway northern section... and the drive back to manchester around the coast... many many moons ago one of my school teachers seemed to have inordinate wealth of fun pronouncing obscure welsh railway stations names... JarrahTree 13:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JarrahTree - I had the advantage, although it didn't seem so at the time, of growing up about three miles from Llanarth Court. It was then a school, and some of my mates went there. It's now a rather expensive private psychiatric hospital. KJP1 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to thank you for looking at my article, and let you know that I added some citations about the school at Marlborough house. I think one of the problems is that the school seems to have been relocated and renamed a few times in its history. Phylactery07 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phylactery07 - And you're absolutely right. I'd just never heard of Marlborough House being a school. What an encylopedia Wiki is! I shall go straight off to Accept. KJP1 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: TOPdesk[edit]

Hi, thanks for leaving feedback for my draft for the TOPdesk page. Still trying to figure this out. I will add new references and submit it for review again, hopefully this week. Dekraan (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit: Hi User:KJP1, I've updated the TOPdesk page based on your feedback. How can I submit it for another review?

Hi KJP1 - trying to share more info on our sources for Draft:K_Madhava_Sarma OzonAction Multi Media Collection (MMC) e-Library contains several thousand publications related to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol dating from 1982 to the present. The referenced publication produced by the OzonAction Programme is available online in full-text PDF format for free download. For publications produced by other organisations, the search engine provides bibliographic citations and the contact details of the publisher from whom copies can be obtained. Please the full issue (see the last page for permissions) that we've quoted from: Shrutip2493 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shrutip2493 - Hi, and thanks for getting back. A few things. Even if you have permission to use copyright material, you can't just cut-and-paste it. It needs to be rewritten to make it appropriate for Wikipedia, unless it's a direct quote. Secondly, you're not doing the citations properly. We don't use embedded external links. Have a look at this, Help:Referencing for beginners, which tells you how we do it. Lastly, new messages go at the bottom of a Talkpage. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 07:20:59, 8 July 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by[edit]

However, no reilable sources and the news about this subject regarding the Constantinescu Petre Mădălin author behind Draft:7EGAS. The result was EPIC FAIL!. I've typed his keyword & tried to find reilable news and secondary sources in Google Search Results. Unfortunately, was ZERO! Please note: I think that 7EGAS appears in search results, but no latest news there... (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite so. KJP1 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah! But I need your aditional statement. (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I'm not understanding what you mean. KJP1 (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional response here *necessary* regarding Draft:7EGAS (already declined). It was not notable subject, unreferenced! (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but all of that has already been said. It doesn't need repeating. KJP1 (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank so very much! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better guidance for submitter of Draft:K Madhava Sarma[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Draft:K Madhava Sarma has problems, but copyvio isn't one of them. Perhaps you're oversimplifying for the benefit of the somewhat clueless contributor, but the ~55% reported by Earwig's Copyvio Detector is only the tool's probability that some text has been copied from Examining the tool's output in detail, the matches are largely long names of entitites and direct quotations:

  • Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
  • Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
  • UNEP Award for Extraordinary Contributions to Ozone Layer Protection
  • "vision, wisdom and leadership helped shape the ozone protection regime ..."
  • "an indefatigable pioneer whose vision, wisdom and leadership had helped shape the ozone protection regime for a quarter century ..."

Long matches like these (which aren't copyright violations) artificially inflate the tool's confidence. The number and extent of phrases that are of actual concern with respect to copying is very small:

  • as a delegate from India, and then as
  • treaty with fewer than 50 parties, to one that
  • streamlined the administration of the institutions of the Protocol

I would class these as inconsequential. Declining for copyvio points the submitter in the wrong direction. If they follow WP:REFB to straighten out the referencing, MOS:LEAD to fix the 75% lead - 25% body problem, and kill anything in the bibliography that isn't a book, they will make it clearer whether the subject is notable. Then the draft would require a complete rewrite to do away with the hagiographic tone. In the course of that, any minor phrasing matches are likely to disappear. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Congrats to your new FA! Any date attached, ot TFA just asap? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerda Arendt - That was quick! And many thanks, for this and for your input. I'm really sorry I didn't get round to yours and that it didn't go through. I went off to Istanbul and it completely slipped my mind. Next one you've got up, just ping me and I promise I'll be right there! No preference as to date, whenever suits. Mind you, Chartwell is older. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you had a good time in Istanbul! No problem about my FAC, - I feel that your time would have been wasted ;) - I will do something else before I'll bring it back, something with a time-stamp, while the other is for 2016. - Today, I changed plans for another legend who died, - had no reference before I started, sigh. Too many deaths recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/St Donat's Castle, just for you to check/shorten the blurb. Will wait for the official star ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sandringham House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daimler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello KJP1, I have updated the sources and edited the text as requested. Yes, this is the first time that I have created a page on Wikipedia, so I'm still learning the process. Is there anything else I can do to improve my current submission and get it published. I have others articles in the pipeline to submit, but I want to nail down the process first. Any links to tips would be greatly appreciated. Also, I would like to add a photo and a summary bar with statistics on the side bar like some other pages. Can you direct me how to do that? Thank you, Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.Loera (talkcontribs) 21:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick.Loera - Yes, you need to properly disclose the paid editing, which you didn't here, despite my asking a direct question. KJP1 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KJP1 - I'm a little confused by your comment. Do I need to disclose that I'm a paid user on every edit I make, even if I created the article? What about here on talk pages? I have since updated my profile to indicate my status, and I made updates to the article according to your comments. Can you please review it once more? I also plan to add an info bar once the client provides a picture. Any tips there? Patrick.Loera (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Patrick.Loera - I don't advise on paid drafts or articles as I believe they go directly against the spirit of Wikipedia and harm the encyclopedia. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Head up, I don't think that MfD worked properly. ♠PMC(talk) 01:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I fixed it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Godsy - Many thanks. MfD and AfC seemed a little awry last night. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced gibberish = WP:G3 ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to prove notability[edit]

Draft:Connie Glynn Hi. I've been trying to improve the page I submitted the beginning of about Connie Glynn. There are many sources around the web that mention her, and I've added more content and sources to the article draft. I'm just wondering what exactly it takes to prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] - Hi. You show notability through "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". And that's the issue here, your coverage isn't significant or independent:
  • Source 1 - this isn't reliable;
  • Source 2 - this is user-driven and not reliable;
  • Source 3 - this is a primary-source interview, with all the hallmarks of a PR-placement, and is basically what Connie tells us about herself. As such, it's not independent;
  • Source 4 - this isn't clear. Who wrote the blurb? It looks user-driven. Either way, it doesn't amount to significant coverage.
Lastly, is this the only article you've worked on here? If it is, and you have a connection with Connie, this needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest and you need to follow our guidance on conflict editing. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zena Sheardown[edit]

I'm not necessarily opposed to a merged article for the couple; but as a member of the Order of Canada (and the first-ever honorary member, which is a status that was created because of her) she pretty clearly passes criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] - Absolutely agree it's arguable but, to me, they're one couple famed for their participation in the same, single, event, and its aftermath. That suggests a single article. But let's see what others think. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 19:16:08, 16 July 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Alifbaee[edit]

I need to know what kind of people are eligible to have a biography here. Can fashion influencer and young lads who have earned big money by their own business such as being stylists, can they join the club? Alifbaee (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alifbaee - Hi, thanks for getting back. The key question is - is the person Notable? We judge this by seeing if they've had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The draft you submitted was incomplete but, looking at your sandbox, I think I can see the draft you want to submit. The problem with it is that there are no sources. If the guy has had "significant coverage", you just need to show that. If he hasn't, the draft won't be accepted. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sandringham House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Belvedere (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi KJP1, Thank you for your feedback. Could you please elaborate a little on why was the draft not approved? Is the concerned person not " Noteable"? Await your response and inputs. Thanks Sethipratiek (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sethipratiek - Hi, thanks for getting back. No, I didn't say he wasn't Notable, but at present the sources don't let us assess this. You need to cite them inline, so we can see what content they support. Have a look at this, Wikipedia:Inline citation, for guidance, and this biography, Narendra Modi, for an example of how we do it. Once you've got the citations inline, we can judge Notability. Also, I see this is, almost, the only article you've ever edited. Do you have a connection to Mr Mustafa? If you do, that needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest and you need to follow our guidance on conflict editing. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @KJP1, Thank you for helping out. I have resubmitted the draft with Inline Citations and proper reference links. Kindly, review the same.

KJP1 Kindly, share the way forward. Await your response. Thanks

Hi, You’ve marked my article for deletion by saying I have a conflict of interest. I assure you NOW - IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM do I have a DECLARATION OF INTEREST. There are no sources as I was told to remove them from the article. Please cancel the deletion, Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BensChopper (talkcontribs) 08:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BensChopper - I didn't mark it for speedy deletion because of the perceived conflict of interest. I marked it because, in my judgement, it's an unsourced advertisement. The reviewing admin will take a view on that. As to the perceived conflict of interest, in that you assure me you don't have one, I shall of course assume good faith. However, it is puzzling that, in the last three years, the only articles you've worked on have been the biographies of two child actors in the same musical. KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BensChopper - I note one of the images for Draft:Lara McDonnell is labelled as "Personal Shot Matilda the Musical Official Photographer". Can I ask how you obtained the necessary permission to load it onto Wikipedia? KJP1 (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BensChopper And the same question for the Olivia Wells photo which appears to have been taken from the musical's Facebook page. KJP1 (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KJP1 - I’ve been to see this Musical too many times to count Mate. I know it off the back of my hand and so I know almost everything about the actresses in it. I’ve now marked all my work for deletion and shall be leaving this Website as you obviously don’t need additions any more. Thanks
BensChopper I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent sources say about a subject. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you or I have to say about anything. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia is there to give out information to those that are interested in learning more about certain topics and Wikipedia helps to combine the information into 1 article. The amount of utter rubbish that has been allowed onto Wikipedia is terrible and allowing two articles about 2 of the UK’s Best Child Actresses is not acceptable. What is the point ? 27 Hours I’ve spent on these and it’s just not worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BensChopper (talkcontribs) 09:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I cleaned it up and added several additional sources.Patrmartin (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrmartin - … and Accepted. Many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.Patrmartin (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 19:20:05, 20 July 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Nancy Webster[edit]

Other than being way more fleshed out - how is Kokolulu Far and Cancer Retreats Inc. different than Kripalu Center? Thanks Nancy Webster (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nancy Webster - Hi, and thanks for getting back. Looking at the two, the obvious difference is that the one has 35 sources, and the other doesn't. Sources are our lifeblood. They establish notability and they allow readers to Verify content. The second point, which is understandably difficult for new editors to get, is that a "my draft's better than that one over there" argument won't really go very far. Wikipedia's a work in progress and there are, sadly, lots of weak articles on here. That's why comparisons rarely advance an argument. This essay, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists gives more detail. Basically, you need to discuss your article draft on its own merits. Last, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - if you're connected, and I think you probably are, this needs to be declared. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia and, if an article about X has been written by someone connected with X, readers have a right to know that. Hope that helps. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry for having posted the draft article in a wrong manner. It was simply a draft. Can I recreate it in a best manner and with many sources? Thanks(Marion994 (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marion994 - Hi, thanks for getting back and no apology necessary. If you really want the draft, what's needed is:
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - if you're connected to the movie, that needs to be declared as a conflict of interest and you need to follow our conflict-editing guidelines. It's only fair to readers of Wikipedia that they know it if Mr X is writing about himself.
  • Wikipedia:Notability (films) - then you need to show Notability, which basically means "does the subject warrant an article on here"?
  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - you do this by finding some reliable sources that have written about the subject. So, for yours, newspaper reviews, reports of distribution, awards, box office etc. You need a few sources as you need to show "significant coverage". YouTube isn't a reliable source as anyone can post there.
  • Wikipedia:Citing sources - and lastly you cite these sources in the body of the article in accordance with our guidance.
Now, you'll see your draft has been deleted. I really would have a good think first as to whether it is worth trying to recreate it, and whether you're the best person to do that if you have a connection. There are over 5 million articles on here and lots of them could do with some work. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you. I modified my User Page with new infos. Is my other draft Draft:Antony Coia worth article or are there problems related to COI, Notability and Sources? Worth working on or better to delete it? I posted to Teahouse for help too. Thank you (Marion994 (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Hello! Can I ask you to help me understand what's wrong with the article I've done? Thanks in advance. CristinaDragau (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CristinaDragau - Certainly. But first, can you say if you have a connection to Alex Litt? KJP1 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not connected directly to the artist, Alex. I'm writing about her as about an artist from my country. We're both from Moldova and I saw a lot of articles and interviews with her on our famous news portals (in Romanian and Russian languages). CristinaDragau (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CristinaDragau - Fine, I'll assume good faith, although you seem to have taken all but one of the photographs. Anyway;
  • Notability - does Ms Litt meet the notability criteria for photographers?
  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - you've got lots, but they're not all strong. Her LinkedIn page isn't independent or reliable, others seem connected to her, many seem primary source interviews (although I can't read them, in fairness); screen shots of message board conversations,blogs etc. None of these are independent/reliable.
  • Promotion - it's a very "positive" article, full of non-neutral words/content. "Alex always loved animals", lists of minor awards, "famous" this and "successful" that. It needs to be a neutral overview of her and her work, not a puff piece. Given the subject matter, and the conservative country in which she lives, I imagine that there have been some negative responses to her work?
Hope this is helpful. KJP1 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About animals - I can change to the neutral fact that she helped animal shelters + was a participant in public actions. About "famous" - those contests are famous. Every year there are more than 80 countries and more than hundred thousand of participants and the award pages provide this information. Negative responses were as comments to her works in social media as Facebook and Instagram, but there are no any article with negatives on the style of artist's works or her personality. All were taken by searching in Google - all these links can be checked. About sources - all information for articles was taken by journalists and processed by independent news portals (in Russian and Romanian - two official languages of Moldova). Yes, there are a lot of interviews, still the information and biography I've gathered for publication is based not only on interviews. For sure, linkedin link can be deleted if it's not appropriate. I just though that one more source will be better to prove the facts from artist's biography. CristinaDragau (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do I consider that she made a great contribution to the development of nude art - she is the first photographer here in Moldova who openly declares her works, specializes in this genre, participates in international competitions and her instagram account has almost 13 thousand subscribers from all over the world: Russia, Poland, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Spain, Italy, France, Australia, Germany, India, etc. (that can be checked by LiveDuna) - she is the first photographer here in Moldova who contributes so much in nude art in this area. CristinaDragau (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 12:44:44, 22 July 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by PervaizAkh[edit]

Hi, I am new to wikipedia and started an article for a upcoming singer. I am having an issue on approval; error "Reliable Source Reference" while person is already has his name in various wikipedia articles. This time I have added few external reliable sources to inline and at bottom Reference tab, Need your assistance if you can go through my article and advice me if this is acceptable according to your experience before I re-submit for approval. Will be much much appreciated. Thanks . Article Name- Draft:Waqar Ehsin PervaizAkh (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PervaizAkh - Twitter's no more reliable than YouTube, as it's user-driven. That leaves your Lux style awards and the Coke award. Have a look at this, Wikipedia:MUSICBIO, which gives our Notability criteria for singers. Personally, I don't think your guy meets these. The tone is also far too promotional, e.g. "He has earned huge fame in few years of his singing career". But, you can always resubmit and another, more knowledgeable reviewer in this area, may disagree. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I understand it now, I will work on it before I submit. Thanks

Thanks for reviewing my request. In response to your comment, I do have references to show that he merits a wikipedia page, but none are related to the information on the page. How should I go about showing that? (By the way, this was the only way I could come up with of responding to you. If it's not the right way, let me know).
B3uuy (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)b3uuyReply[reply]

B3uuy Hi, thanks for getting back.This is exactly the right way to get in touch. So, your draft. There are 3 big issues: first, you can’t copy a whole article from somewhere else, even with permission. Second, you haven’t got any references, and the article can’t be accepted without them. Sources are essential. Lastly, what’s written is a eulogy/memorial and not a Wikipedia article. And we’re not a memorial site. The tone/content just isn’t suitable. I’m sorry, but it’s just not appropriate for Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I will try to work on making the page more suitable.

B3uuy (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)b3uuyReply[reply]

B3uuy - I'm trying to say that I don't believe the page can be made more suitable. But you can try, of course. KJP1 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noted that you have declined (the above). I have found and added more information about this Dutch company and its Indian subsidiary and think that the article is ready to go by now. Could you re-review it, please? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NearEMPTiness - The first two sources aren't independent. The third is a twenty-year old tax law case. That's nowhere near the significant coverage we need to show Notability. If I were to review again, I'd decline again. KJP1 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! TremendousKnowledge (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TremendousKnowledge - Hi, did you have a question? KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Can you become an administrator on Wikipedia? And what do they do? Is it a good job and is it real fun? I'm interested. I'm new to all this you see. I'm 18 years old and I'm still learning. I was a former student at Leicester College. It wasn't the right environment for me. I'm going to Soft Touch in September 2018 and I'm really excited. I'm going to study art and computing and cookery. I like this site. I have always been inspired by these amazing users that makes learning a joy. It's really fun to learn new things. I really hate vandalism. You can't tell what's true and what's not. That is why I am here to not just increase my knowledge and skills and contributions, but I am also here to help battle with stupid vandalism as well. Life is a learning curve. I'd love to become an administrator one day. Could you tell me everyt§hing you know about Wikipedia and how was your experience then and now? You also inspired me. Its very hard to type, especially with a phone. Leave a message on my talk page and on yours. Get other users to message me about their experience too. Thank÷s! You are a good friend! Could you please add a welcome.TremendousKnowledge (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TremendousKnowledge - Hi. A few points in response. Yes, Wikipedia can be a wonderful place and I hope you enjoy it. I suggest you start by working on some existing articles, there are over 5m of them, before trying to write your own. You'll learn that way. I'm not the right person to ask about being an admin, as I'm not one, but I'd suggest it's too early. Last, just be careful about posting personal information on here. It's too easy to leave quite a large digital footprint. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Altima Telecom[edit]

Hello KJP1. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Altima Telecom, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 06:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eastmain - Your call - thanks for letting me know. KJP1 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a bit promotional and could benefit from copy-editing, but it's not bad enough to be deleted. A lot of draft submissions are quite weak, but they can often be improved to the point where they can be published. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 06:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eastmain … and a lot warrant deletion. There's not a single acceptable source, the SPA will have an undeclared COI, and to me it's clearly an advert; "Thanks to a growing customer base and increasing demand for its offering, Altima was able to attract the best suppliers, partners, and equipment to maximize value for customers, allowing the company to provide some of the most competitive prices in Canada". But Wikipedia's a big tent and can easily encompass our differing viewpoints. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreferenced? Maybe, but your blanking is unexplained either. Maybe you could start an AfD?Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xx236 - Quite possibly, but the advice at COI was stubify. It's a case where a user with a very direct, but undeclared, connection has flown beneath the radar for quite a while creating a main article and a string of subsidiaries to promote the subject. If people feel that AfD's the better route, I could certainly do that. He may, or may not meet Wikipedia:NMUSIC but either way shouldn't be writing with such a blatant COI. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have have restored the lead and the references that support it.--Racklever (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's awful. I'm minded to return to KJP1's excellent version. Is it acceptable that Racklever leaves this article with 31 references that are not supporting the paragraph, but are just tacked on? It stinks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm getting a sense that AfD is the favoured approach. But very happy to be advised otherwise as this isn't an area I've experience of. But like others, I'm uncomfortable that a promotional COI article, more accurately a string of them, continues to stand, as it has done for quite some while. KJP1 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Raised at AfD, here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Tarquin, should people want to chip in. KJP1 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Ali Wazir - My entry was denied due to reliable sources[edit]

HI could you please let me know reliable sources rejected my post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar shahid (talkcontribs) 13:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umar shahid - Hi, and thanks for getting back. The problem I saw is that 12 of your references are to Wikipedia. Wikipedia can't source itself. So I'd suggest you replace those 12 with reliable sources and then resubmit and another reviewer can take a look. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 17:35:54, 26 July 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Music4airports[edit]

Hi. I've just started contributing to Wikipedia recently because I noticed there is a lot of room for improvement around the current experimental/jazz/classical music scene. Could you tell me why you thought my Taku Unami entry read like an "advert." Thanks!Music4airports (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music4airports - Hi, thanks for getting back. And apologies, my review wasn't as helpful as it could have been. Although it's a bit promotional for me, the real issue is the sourcing. Four are All Music which isn't reliable as a source as its reviews are user-driven. A similar issue with IMDb. So that's half your sources. Having said that, the others look ok, so I'd suggest you drop it back into the pool and another reviewer should pick it up shortly. Sorry if I was over hasty. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for your reply! It's extremely helpful. I've also recently written one for Sarah Davachi (Draft:Sarah_Davachi) and would love to get your feedback on that one so I can improve my contributor skills (if you have time, of course!). Thanks again. Music4airports (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day. You said that this reads more like an advertisement. Can you be more specific and tell me how that is the case? Also, my list of references specifically exclude work that she has produced. Her website is only mentioned as part of her bio, and everything else is based on various publications. I would like to continue working on this, but I feel that I need further guidance on how to do so to ensure that the page is created correctly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChau26 (talkcontribs) 11:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheChau26 - Not sure how I can be more specific. The whole draft is a promotional advert. KJP1 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I look at other Wikipedia pages on personalities and they take the format of "this person is this and does that and has done the other." Then it is broken down into sections and subsections detailing the above. I don't see how what I did is any different. How does the whole thing sound like an ad? Can you give an example?
TheChau26 - Is one from every paragraph enough for you? KJP1 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "an extensive professional career working with adult clients from a solutions-focused model."
  • "the opportunity to let others into her intimate exploration of herself; this lead to the birth of Jet Setting Jasmine"
  • "Jasmine's high-spirited & unconventional approach"
  • "She brings the unique elements of sexiness and confidence"
  • "Their varied experiences allowed them to give a boost to Jet Setting Jasmine"
  • "Jet Setting Jasmine, LLC provides a wide variety of products and services"
  • "Giving back is very important to Jet Setting Jasmine".

I do not know how to write on Wiki. That is why there is misunderstanding.Can you help to improve and contribute to this article? Bích Liên 1571 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)!Reply[reply]

Bích Liên 1571 - I'm not sure there's much to be done, as I believe you're blocked and the draft's been deleted. Basically, it was just an advert and you had an undeclared conflict of interest. If you get back on this site, I'd strongly suggest you start by working on some existing articles. Starting your own from scratch, when you "don't know how to write on Wikipedia", is probably a step too far. KJP1 (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 17:25:17, 1 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Tegan Marie[edit]

Please let me know how I can fix the problems with the page to make it within acceptable standards of wikipedia. I would love for the page to be accepted and submitted. Tegan Marie (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tegan Marie - Hi, thanks for getting back. As you know, it has been deleted, so I'll have to go on memory. I think there were two main issues:
  • Conflict of interest - your username suggests either that you are Tegan or are closely connected. It's not a good idea to try to write an autobiography, as you won't be able to maintain a Neutral point of view. The same holds true if you're closely connected. In any event, you'd need to declare a conflict of interest and follow our guidance on conflict editing.
  • Notability - Musicians need to meet our Notability criteria. I don't think Tegan did. Their Notability needs to be demonstrated by "significant coverage in a range of reliable, independent sources" and I don't think this was met either.
In brief, even if Tegan meets the criteria, and this needs to be shown through sources, you really aren't best placed to write the article. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I can make minor changes to the not so appropriate information by censoring some of it. Is that okay with you that way it does not fall into the category of speedy deletion.

Anonymous1941 - Please sign your posts. I think the articles are wholly inappropriate and, in my view, no editing will make them appropriate. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Inappropriate draft"[edit]

I noticed that you and Primefac are still discussing about my draft and you still claim it's inappropriate. Did you ever take a look at the other teen suicide wikipedia articles and they have inappropriate information such as going to a party, punching one other in the face, cutting, drinking bleach etc. Why you don't care about other people's suicide articles and you specifically care about my article. Please give me an explanation and you claim it's impossible to make it as appropriate as possible even though it is possible to make it appropriate. --Anonymous1941 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonymous1941, Primefac - We're not still discussing the draft. Primefac pointed out I couldn't CSD it and reverted my request. I haven't looked at other child suicide pages and don't intend to. Unless they lead to something of importance, such as a legislative measure, I think they are inappropriate, without significance, prurient, completely insensitive and shouldn't be on here. Others, including yourself, disagree. KJP1 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Michael Del Priore - lacks notability[edit]

I'm an artist/art historian attempting my first article on artist, Michael Del Priore. I listed nine legitimate newspaper/magazine articles as references. The subject, artist Michael Del Priore, is acknowledged in one of them as one of the top five portrait artists in the country, equal to or more accomplished than several other primarily portrait artists who already have a Wikipedia page. Please give me some tips to progress to my goal of creating a Wikipedia page for Michael Del Priore. Answ3rback 227

Answ3rback227 - Everything you say may be true. But I can't know it from the draft. You need to give sources and you need to cite them correctly. Have a look at this, Help:Referencing for beginners, which tells you how to do it. You say you've given nine but they're not appearing in the draft. Also, I note you say the information came from your interviews with the artist. If you have a connection, this needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I wanted to thank you for looking at my draft, and let you know that the page now is updated with more reliable resources. Can you please check again and let me know whatever it needs to be accepted? Santanara (talk) 9:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Santanara - Not sure what you've done, but every single source remains to his work, or to a work of which he is co-author. There's no independent coverage. Also, I see this is the only article draft you've ever worked on. If you have a connection to the subject, you need to declare this as a conflict of interest and comply with our conflict editing guidance. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. Thank you for taking time to review my draft, and your help. I hope I understood correctly your remark about the references to his own works, so I added references to articles and patents in which the authors referred to his works and inventions (Chapter: Independent links). Also information about him and this works is given in National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Scopus bibliographic database, WorldCat Identities and Google Scholar (Chapter: External links). Is this enough or needs some other independent coverage? Also I want to say that Leonid Fainzilberg is the head of my Ph.D. Thesis. As I understood from the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (I read it in Russian, but I hope that the meaning has not changed) I should declare my conflict of interests, but I can still edit pages preserving a neutral, unbiased attitude to the subject. I hope I got it right and I thank you again for your help and advices. Santanara (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 12:31:17, 5 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Frontia[edit]

The article is written by a third party and I'm surprised you rejected it. I have re-worked parts that sounds like promoting the company. I hope you look into it and approve accordingly. I removed the statement so I can use the paid template as recommended by Wikipedia. I understand your point but some smaller companies with significance and promise in certain parts of the world should also be afforded entries in Wikipedia and someone's go to write it. Since a third party is required, I guess this is still within the ambit of Wikipedia's rules.

Do you recommend I re-write this as a new draft?

Frontia (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frontia - The earlier version of your message ran, "The article is written by a third party (the company is a client of ours)", before you deleted the bold statement. That's about as clear an admission of an undeclared Conflict of interest as I've seen. I don't knowingly work on paid articles as I believe they damage Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frontia - You're getting the order of things wrong. The COI declaration comes before you submit the draft for approval. And before you've been found out. KJP1 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frontia - No. I recommend you don't try and use Wikipedia as a marketing platform for a non-notable company. KJP1 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KJP1 I don't understand your position and how do you regards this as being use as "a marketing platform for a non-notable company"? How do you define non-notable companies? There are coverages of this company online, interviews on TV including on CNBC and other local TV stations. Must a company be a US firm to pass your "non-notability" test? There are several firms here on Wikipedia that are not as notable(User talk:Frontia)
Frontia - As I've said above, I don't advise on paid-for contributions. KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KJP1 Thank you for your feedback.

Hi! I recently stumbled across the draft for the Samuel and Dorothy Eppstein Residence that was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. I understand your comments about how that draft was sourced, but I'm not clear on your point about notability. The house was designed by a pre-eminent American architect that is "notable" and is a part of a community of Wright-designed homes -- The Acres -- that is notable and has a Wikipedia entry. ( I'm unclear on how a house within that community cannot have its own entry. Alternatively, should I work on adding information about the S&D E Residence to the existing entry for The Acres ( I appreciate your guidance, please. Nomad 2 (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)BrhannanReply[reply]

Brhannan - Hi and thanks for getting back. If you have a look at the comment I left, I didn't say it wasn't Notable, indeed quite the reverse. I only said that the sources, as they stood, didn't demonstrate Notability. It absolutely would warrant its own article, and I suggested some possible sources to use. I hope this is helpful. I'm afraid I'm not involved in Afc anymore so I won't be able to re-review myself, but plenty of others will. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your point, and I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.Nomad 2 (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. Thank you for taking time to review my draft, and your help. I hope I understood correctly your remark about the references to his own works, so I added references to articles and patents in which the authors referred to his works and inventions (Chapter: Independent links). Also information about him and this works is given in National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Scopus bibliographic database, WorldCat Identities and Google Scholar (Chapter: External links). Is this enough or needs some other independent coverage? Also I want to say that Leonid Fainzilberg is the head of my Ph.D. Thesis. As I understood from the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (I read it in Russian, but I hope that the meaning has not changed) I should declare my conflict of interests, but I can still edit pages preserving a neutral, unbiased attitude to the subject. I hope I got it right and I thank you again for your help and advices. Santanara (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Santanara - Hi, your connection to the subject is very clear and certainly needs to be declared as a conflict. As to whether the sources are now sufficiently independent, I'm afraid I can't say as I'm no longer involved in Articles for creation. But I see you've resubmitted and I'm sure a reviewer will be along soon. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi KJP1, thank you for remind me of basic post on wikipedia. I want to re-submit, what should I do to make my article not really look like "PR" things? Regards, Danil Oar1604 (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oar1604 - I'm not involved in Afc anymore but I can make two suggestions - find reliable sources that aren't connected to the hotel and that write about it in some detail. Second, don't use promotional language. The Afc Helpdesk should be able to give further advice. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waiting for Two Months[edit]

KJP1, I've been waiting for two months now, and I would to know if you can help me get this article published. Worldbruce sent me some great information to help, which I followed, but the article is still awaiting approval. What is the best way to get this published and to make future edits if I need to add more information? // — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.Loera (talkcontribs) 18:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick.Loera - I'm afraid I'm no longer involved in articles for creation, but if you resubmit a reviewer will take a look. KJP1 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:FB88 VIỆT NAM, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cahk (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]